Global banks are nearing peak regulation
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.
By Peter Thal Larsen
LONDON, Oct 31 (Reuters Breakingviews) -Sixteen years ago last month, Jamie Dimon was summoned to Washington. There, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson presented the JPMorgan JPM.N chief executive and the heads of eight other large U.S. banks with a non-negotiable proposal: accept up to $250 billion in capital from the federal government. The move was part of an unprecedented and coordinated attempt to save the global banking system from collapse. It also marked the beginning of an overhaul of financial regulation that, a decade and a half later, is still not complete.
This week, though, Dimon declared he had had enough of new bank rules. “It is time to fight back,” the 68-year-old, the only one of the nine CEOs from 2008 still in the same job, told the American Bankers Association. “We don't want to get involved in litigation just to make a point, but if you're in a knife fight, you better bring a knife and that's where we are."
Dimon, whose bank is the world’s largest with a market value of $630 billion, is not alone. Across the developed world, bank executives are pushing to limit - and in some cases reverse - rules introduced since 2008. Though previous attempts to resist the regulatory onslaught largely failed, there are good grounds for believing that banks are approaching peak regulation.
The first reason is that recollections of the crisis have faded. Banks are no longer the fragile beasts that would have toppled over in 2008 without taxpayer support. Lenders absorbed the shock of the Covid pandemic in 2020, and most large banks also emerged unharmed from the market turmoil of March 2023, when several regional U.S. banks failed and Credit Suisse had to be rescued by its Swiss rival UBS UBSG.S.
Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, told an audience in Washington last week that memories of crises recede over time. “I can observe this happening with the global financial crisis fifteen years or so on. I do get people telling me that ‘you have solved that one so we can relax’.”
The second reason is that banks face intense competition from private credit providers and buyout firms. Much of this is by design: after 2008, regulators explicitly wanted to shift riskier activity to institutions where reckless behaviour would do less harm. Regulators are also shifting their focus. The BoE is subjecting 50 institutions to what it calls a system-wide exploratory scenario, where the central bank asks them to simulate a shock to see how it ripples through the markets.
The third factor is that politicians who initially blamed banks for the economic costs of the crisis are now more sympathetic to the notion of a tradeoff between regulation and growth. Watchdogs in turn face accusations that their rules are out of line with other jurisdictions. Swiss bankers have criticised government plans to impose tougher capital requirements on UBS because it could make the industry less competitive. The BoE plans to shrink the period over which senior bankers must defer bonuses from eight years to five.
Meanwhile, banks have ramped up their lobbying efforts. U.S. lenders spent much of last year arguing against a package of rules known as “Basel Endgame”, which American regulators had adapted from global guidelines. They even created television ads urging Congress to act. The pressure paid off: In September Michael Barr, the Federal Reserve’s top bank cop, announced a set of diluted proposals.
This is hardly a bonfire of regulation, though. Many watchdogs are still implementing new directives. In the European Union and United Kingdom, the final set of Basel rules is not due to take effect until 2026. Regulators are also busy enforcing compliance with new rules - and punishing firms that fall short.
Yet the global regulatory edifice remains fragile. U.S. watchdogs have yet to agree on a common approach to Basel. The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is resisting the Federal Reserve’s watered-down proposals, Reuters reported in September, citing three people with knowledge of the matter. The standoff looks set to drag beyond next week’s presidential election. If former President Donald Trump returns to the White House, the regulators he installs could dilute the proposals further - or even ditch the Basel framework altogether.
This prospect alarms rule-setters. “An open global financial system requires global prudential standards,” Erik Thedéen, governor of Sweden’s Riksbank and chair of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, warned in Washington. “Failure on this count could result in regulatory fragmentation, regulatory arbitrage and a potential ‘race to the bottom’ leading to a dilution of banks' resilience.”
Policymakers have good reasons to be concerned. While volatility in markets remains relatively low, this is at odds with the unpredictable direction of inflation and interest rates, the International Monetary Fund points out in its latest Global Financial Stability Report. Increased geopolitical risks could also produce financial shocks. Given these uncertainties, banks arguably need even bigger buffers.
Some parts of the post-2008 overhaul also remain unfinished. Despite extensive efforts to design tools for safely winding down failing banks, Swiss regulators balked at using their powers to tackle Credit Suisse. Last year’s crises also revealed new vulnerabilities in banking: depositors yanked online funds from Silicon Valley Bank in a matter of hours.
Most big lenders do not want to dismantle the post-crisis regulatory infrastructure. Roughly equivalent global rules make it easier for international banks to operate across borders. Besides, the tower of regulation constructed since 2008 is an effective barrier to upstart fintech firms hoping to disrupt the banking industry.
Even so, policymakers should heed the lessons learned by their predecessors in 2008. Klaas Knot, president of the Dutch central bank and head of the Financial Stability Board, recently reminded an audience in Washington that financial stability is the foundation of government policy. “If financial stability is gone, as a government you can forget about the other policy priorities. You will spend most of your time drawing up rescue plans for an economy in free fall.”
Follow @peter_tl on X
SVB, Signature were first US bank failures since 2020 https://reut.rs/3YGYYh4
Equity volatility in US and Japan is low for now https://reut.rs/4huvJ8D
Editing by Liam Proud and Pranav Kiran
면책조항: XM Group 회사는 체결 전용 서비스와 온라인 거래 플랫폼에 대한 접근을 제공하여, 개인이 웹사이트에서 또는 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능한 콘텐츠를 보거나 사용할 수 있도록 허용합니다. 이에 대해 변경하거나 확장할 의도는 없습니다. 이러한 접근 및 사용에는 다음 사항이 항상 적용됩니다: (i) 이용 약관, (ii) 위험 경고, (iii) 완전 면책조항. 따라서, 이러한 콘텐츠는 일반적인 정보에 불과합니다. 특히, 온라인 거래 플랫폼의 콘텐츠는 금융 시장에서의 거래에 대한 권유나 제안이 아닙니다. 금융 시장에서의 거래는 자본에 상당한 위험을 수반합니다.
온라인 거래 플랫폼에 공개된 모든 자료는 교육/정보 목적으로만 제공되며, 금융, 투자세 또는 거래 조언 및 권고, 거래 가격 기록, 금융 상품 또는 원치 않는 금융 프로모션의 거래 제안 또는 권유를 포함하지 않으며, 포함해서도 안됩니다.
이 웹사이트에 포함된 모든 의견, 뉴스, 리서치, 분석, 가격, 기타 정보 또는 제3자 사이트에 대한 링크와 같이 XM이 준비하는 콘텐츠 뿐만 아니라, 제3자 콘텐츠는 일반 시장 논평으로서 "현재" 기준으로 제공되며, 투자 조언으로 여겨지지 않습니다. 모든 콘텐츠가 투자 리서치로 해석되는 경우, 투자 리서치의 독립성을 촉진하기 위해 고안된 법적 요건에 따라 콘텐츠가 의도되지 않았으며, 준비되지 않았다는 점을 인지하고 동의해야 합니다. 따라서, 관련 법률 및 규정에 따른 마케팅 커뮤니케이션이라고 간주됩니다. 여기에서 접근할 수 있는 앞서 언급한 정보에 대한 비독립 투자 리서치 및 위험 경고 알림을 읽고, 이해하시기 바랍니다.
